Camera test ride - two small incidents with blind motorists

[tdr1nka]

Thanks for the tips guys, didn't even know I had Movie Maker as standard!

 

[GrasB]

funny.

YOU didn't signal a left turn.

what does that make you some kind of a hazard.

it might help to be perfect before you expect it of others. just sayin'

A signal is a courtesy to other road users to give them more information. With this is mind, when you're unsure about your actions it's usually better to not signal as no information is better than incorrect information!

Another interesting point is that on a bike I'll take decision not to signal or only signal to my initial placement manoeuvre, remembering signalling is reducing my own stability & control of the bike, & use my road position to indicate my intent as best as possible. The reason is simple... I'm a lot safer up right & stable than wobbling about or on the deck because I didn't have full control of my bike on bad road surfaces

 

[mr_hippo]

OMG! Another numpty with a video camera. At the start of the video, you say "My right of way, car from left should stop". Tell me, where do you get this 'right of way' from? Can you buy it or is it awarded to you? Can anyone get it? You may have 'priority' but you certainly do not have 'right of way'.
The other incident was well engineered by you. Are you familar with the Highway Code? General rules section - (103-158) states "This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders. The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident." I will assume that you saw the vehicle emerging from the right so why didn't you adjust your speed to avoid an incident.

 

[thomas]

Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.

I was going to start a thread about this the other week, as surely the majority of accidents could be solved by anticipating better by the people who didn't cause them? Therefore to some degree you could argue the toss over any accident you had, claiming that it should always be 50/50, as though I pulled out too late, the other person should of slowed down and let me out so that it could of been avoided.

I think the rule means well in spirit. Don't do something dangerous to prove a point or teach someone a lesson. It isn't saying that the car pulling out in front is not in the wrong, just that it makes more sense just to slow down a bit, calm down and not let it wind you up. I don't think the "numpty with a video camera" is the in the wrong because of this rule. The person should not of pulled out.

As for right of way/priority. They are terms that to some degree are used interchangeably even if they may have slightly different meanings. Certainly, whether I have right of way or priority I would not want someone to pull out in front of me when they do not have it and I also would not adjust my driving/riding to not cause an accident, just because I would be in the right.

 

[achappers]

OMG! Another numpty with a video camera.

Oh dear the troll is back, if you don't like these discussions don't view them. I made it perfectly clear in the title what this thread was about.

At least I don't proclaim myself as a 'living legend', I'm a little more modest.

 

[thomas]

Oh dear the troll is back, if you don't like these discussions don't view them. I made it perfectly clear in the title what this thread was about.

At least I don't proclaim myself as a 'living legend', I'm a little more modest.

I know mr_hippo has one of these cameras so his statement about numpties wasn't completely wrong

 

[downfader]

OMG! Another numpty with a computer keyboard. At the start of the message, I say "I'm a Hippo numpty". Tell me, where do you get this 'monkey' from? Its on my back. Can you buy it or is it awarded to you? Can anyone get it? You may have no 'monkey' but you certainly do not have 'soecial needs'.

The other incident made my head explode with indignant rage. Are you familar with the sedatives? Because I need some! I will assume that you saw the space ship emerging from the right so why didn't you adjust your speed to avoid an invasion.

There, corrected that for you Hippo!

 

[Bollo]

Oh dear the troll is back, if you don't like these discussions don't view them. I made it perfectly clear in the title what this thread was about.

Every time Mr_Hippo posts, the universe dies a little.

The highway code does indeed say a lot about 'priority'. This useful little linguistic finesse, alongside the warning about avoiding accidents, is intended to encourage defensive road use. It's not there to transfer any blame back to an innocent party when faced with ignorant, bullying or selfish behaviour.

Honestly, I wouldn't have sweated either incident beyond muttering a few potty words, but it's icy and the last thing you need is to grab a handful a brake to avoid becoming bonnet candy.

 

[mr_hippo]

I think the rule means well in spirit. Don't do something dangerous to prove a point or teach someone a lesson. It isn't saying that the car pulling out in front is not in the wrong, just that it makes more sense just to slow down a bit, calm down and not let it wind you up. I don't think the "numpty with a video camera" is the in the wrong because of this rule. The person should not of pulled out.When will you learn that it is 'should have' and not 'should of'?
As for right of way/priority. They are terms that to some degree are used interchangeably even if they may have slightly different meanings. Certainly, whether I have right of way or priority I would not want someone to pull out in front of me when they do not have it and I also would not adjust my driving/riding to not cause an accident, just because I would be in the right.

I will write this slowly as you appear not to be able to read fast - You do not have 'right of way' at any time
"I also would not adjust my driving/riding to not cause an accident, just because I would be in the right."Let's forget the double negative, are you trying to say that you would prefer to be in an accident rather than take avoiding action?

I know mr_hippo has one of these cameras so his statement about numpties wasn't completely wrong

Is English your native language? If I said 'numpties wearing football shirts', does this mean that everyone who wears a football shirt is a numpty? Of course not, keep practising the English language

There, corrected that for you Hippo!

How can a complete re-write be a correction?

Every time Mr_Hippo posts,the universe learns something useful.

The highway code does indeed say a lot about 'priority'. This useful little linguistic finesse, alongside the warning about avoiding accidents, is intended to encourage defensive road use. It's not there to transfer any blame back to an innocent party when faced with ignorant, bullying or selfish behaviour.

Honestly, I wouldn't have sweated either incident beyond muttering a few potty words, but it's icy and the last thing you need is to grab a handful a brake to avoid becoming bonnet candy.

'Right of way' & 'priority' are two different things and not 'a useful little linguistic finesse'.
If you know that it is icy then take extra care or is that beyond your comprehension?

 

[Bman]

You do not have 'right of way' at any time

I have right of way into my house! <---smug smiley

 

[GrasB]

If you know that it is icy then take extra care or is that beyond your comprehension?

There are also limits to what is reasonable, yes it's icy but do you slow to an effective stop just because someone may pull out? Try doing that & you'll probably end up with someone going into the back of you or people attempting dangerous overtakes due to your excessive caution, I'm not just talking bikes here I'm also talking in cars etc. For a narrow vehicle like a bike moving to the outside of the lane gives you extra space & thus prevents you needing to jam on the brakes to slow down rapidly in potentially dangerous conditions, it also gives you some extra safety if they do something unexpected, remembering they've already shown some poor judgment!

 

[BentMikey]

Whatever we think of mr_hippo, he's correct on the priority vs right-of-way debate.

 

[Alien8]

The Highway Code states:

172
The approach to a junction may have a ‘Give Way’ sign or a triangle marked on the road. You MUST give way to traffic on the main road when emerging from a junction with broken white lines across the road.

So wrt to the incident in the video the question is whether the cyclist was sufficiently close to passing the junction that the car driver should have given-way. In this instance the likelihood of collision was low and it's just annoying (to the cyclist) more than anything else. However, it was still an example of poor driving skills by the motorist.

We all know that (i) the best assumption is to assume that every other road user is out to get you (ii) there is little to be gained by waving the Highway Code about whilst you're flat on your back in hospital.

A significant number of road users have no idea how to behave on the roads through either ignorance or more likely selfishness. People don't indicate at junctions, RABs etc because that can't be arsed.

Always assume that every car will pull-out in front of you, every pedestrian is likely to step in to the road without looking, every car door is likely to open just as you pass etc.

You know it makes sense.

 

[Bollo]

'Right of way' & 'priority' are two different things and not 'a useful little linguistic finesse'.

<sigh>Did I say they weren't? Let's look at what the OED says....

Finesse - refinement, subtle or delicate manipulation, artfulness, esp in handling a difficulty tactfully.

The word 'priority' has been chosen by the good people of the HC very carefully to handle difficulty. It's useful because it serves a purpose. The contract between potentially conflicting road users is a subtle one and can't always be governed by the black-and-white rule of "thou shalt have right-of-way". Hence the refinement. It subtly shifts the emphasis towards defensive road use. You did read that bit first time, right? In people's day-to-day dealings with each other on the road, most road users expect their priority to be observed. If it isn't observed and there's an incident, the party that failed to observe the priority will usually be found at fault and pay the financial and legal consequences. BUT, like 'road tax', the phrase 'right of way' has entered the lexicon and is unlikely to go anytime soon. Live with it.

In the video, two road users failed to observe the priority of another road user. That isn't the OP's fault. He can react in a more or less controlled manner. At the rab I didn't see any reaction at all. When the driver of the second car decided to ignore the OP's priority at a junction, he did react in a way that I wouldn't have chosen to do by attempting a partial overtake. There might be the mitigation of an icy road, in which case more gentle braking and pulling out may have been safer than ramming on the brakes and staying behind. Or the OP may have been annoyed and wanting to make a point. I don't know which is true, and neither do you Mr Hippo.

If you know that it is icy then take extra care or is that beyond your comprehension?

Isn't that what I said in my first post? If it's icy, don't brake hard. You did read that bit, right?


Mr Hippo, one of your favourite posting tactics is to question people's comprehension. You invite them to read more slowly. This reminds me of the behaviour of the stereotypical ignorant brit abroad; if the locals don't understand English, shout the same words more slowly.

 

[downfader]

How can a complete re-write be a correction?

Because with a troll like you pretty much everything needs correcting Honestly... you only come on here to cause conflict and then quote some random bit of the HC which is almost always irrelevant to the argument. You're as bad as those d*cks who go on the yahoo car forums after hearing about cyclists killed on their road and say "ahh well, you see thats the problem, roads is fer cars innit"